New York Markets After Hours

Commentary

Maureen Dowd's plagiarism isn't her No. 1 problem

Commentary: She has shown a penchant for 'mailing in' columns

By

JonFriedman

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's recent plagiarism controversy isn't her biggest problem.

An accusation of plagiarism is merely a symptom of Dowd's recent penchant for relying on clever, witty and pithy observations. What's missing is the substance to back them up. Her approach smacks of laziness.

When George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz lorded over the White House, Dowd had a field day. She could mock their clubby, bully-boy ways and come across as edgy and naughty. As the American public progressively soured on the Iraqi invasion and Bush's foreign policy, Dowd's journalistic stock soared.

Naturally, she entitled her first book, a collection of columns, "Bushworld." Don't hold your breath in anticipation of seeing a volume called "Obamaworld," though.

The new president has unwittingly thwarted Dowd. Obama's speaking style and general comportment are so straightforward and unflappable that it's a chore for Dowd to target him.

Plus, the president has shrugged off any whiff of criticism for his appointments or policies. Sure, the usual crowd of bloggers and Cheney's fringe audience are happily blasting Obama. But that is to be expected. The mainstream media and fair-minded blogosphere have mostly given Obama the benefit of the doubt.

All of which makes it tough for Dowd. If she heaps abuse on Obama, she is lumping herself in with the Cheney brigade. Does Dowd want to side with someone she professes to loathe?

Outcry overblown?

The plagiarism controversy was big news among media mavens. When she wrote about Cheney and torture, Dowd was accused of ripping off Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. Times spokespeople said it was unintentional.

In what could be construed as an aw-shucks admission, Public Editor Clark Hoyt, the Times' ombudsman, wrote on May 23: "Another blogger noticed, and the Internet was soon aflame with charges of plagiarism."

Dowd's defense was that she hadn't read Marshall's blog and merely repeated what a friend told her. Yeah, right. And O.J. Simpson still is trying to find the real killers.

Even if Dowd is correct, does she expect anyone to believe such a hazy, unapologetic explanation? It also invites questions of whether Dowd has done this sort of thing before. As I type this, I suspect bloggers are scrutinizing her previous columns.

The Times subsequently attributed Dowd's column appropriately and published a correction. As Hoyt noted, "her explanation was unconvincing to some." He didn't bother to include any examples, but added tellingly: "How could a friend, whom Dowd has not identified, repeat verbatim a 42-word paragraph?"

Hoyt wrote: "I do not think Dowd plagiarized, but I also do not think what she did was right."

Marshall observed: "We're too quick to pull the trigger with charges of plagiarism."

Rival outshines

Dowd now pales next to her biggest rival, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post
WPO
Milbank is another perennial critic of the people occupying the White House, regardless of their political stripe.

Last July, Milbank, showing that pithiness can work well, pointed out: "Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee."

Perhaps Dowd has run out of inspiration and fresh ideas. Three times in May alone, Dowd's columns were entitled "Cheney Grabs a Third Term," "Cheney, Master of Pain" and "Rogue Diva of Doom," focusing on the former vice president. Then there was also "Vice's Secret Vices" in late April.

In those commentaries, Dowd seemed almost nostalgic for what were, for her, the good old days. I could almost see her sighing wistfully when she typed, "Doomsday Dick" had "replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva."

Her pop-culture references seem forced at times, too. "Gabriel Byrne's brooding psychoanalyst on 'In Treatment' might envy Barack Obama's calming psychoanalysis in Europe," Dowd wrote in April in a column entitled "The First Shrink."

Dowd hasn't tried too hard to explain what is going on in Washington. She was at her best when Bush & Co., and Bill and Hillary Clinton were in power because they were such easy targets.

'Mailing in' columns

Times editors should be concerned about what I see as Dowd's recent penchant for "mailing in" some of her Obama-era columns. These don't hold up to the same standards of brilliance that they reflected during the Dubya years.

At her best, Dowd was scathing and topical, the absolute definition of a "must-read" columnist. And she continues to be one of the Times' most widely read writers.

I don't get any pleasure out of writing this about Dowd. I used to be one of those Times readers who looked forward to Wednesdays and Sundays because her columns were so special. Now she seems irrelevant -- a face in the crowd.

Dowd, 57, wrote another book called "Are Men Necessary?" Now, I wonder the same about her.

Maybe Obama is so bland that Dowd is thoroughly bored and can't muster her usual biting sarcasm. If that's the case, the Times should pull her column and let her do something else.

MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: What do you like or dislike about Maureen Dowd?

Intraday Data provided by SIX Financial Information and subject to terms of use.
Historical and current end-of-day data provided by SIX Financial Information.
All quotes are in local exchange time. Real-time last sale data for U.S. stock quotes reflect trades reported through Nasdaq only.
Intraday data delayed at least 15 minutes or per exchange requirements.